There are two critical things. One is on the debate that we just had. There's been a ruling, and considering the workload we have with CEPA yet to go, I'm cautious about our staying focused on that territory.
The second is with regard to Mr. Vellacott's indignation of notice. I've always had the practice of bringing proper notice to committee. The particular reason for this--and I thought it was in conjunction with Mr. McGuinty's--is what I thought was one of the most serious letters I've ever received from the Auditor General. The intention of the motion is not promiscuous or provocative. It is simply to say that with a letter like this from the auditor--let's be clear of the timeline--that the government knew of this review going on with climate change programs. It was going on all last year. The reports were being conducted in the summer. The government agreed to the recommendations that were given to them in the summertime to release this plan. The plan is not forthcoming in the report, and the Auditor General was using extremely strong language for an auditor, hence this motion.
So I think we should move to voting on it as quickly as we can move, and then get back to the CEPA business. That way we can bring some clarity in terms of an obligation that the government's already agreed to. This is not asking for anything the government hasn't already said they would do months ago. That's all.
I can remember--just to be clear--that Conservative members opposite, when they sat on this side of the benches, when we waited for the then Liberal plan for months and months, repeated consternation about the waiting and the waiting--when is it coming?--Mr. Mills and others. So let's not too quickly forget the past.
Let's get on with it. Let's vote on this and get it done.